PreprintCited by 1Blockchain Technology Applications and SecurityCryptography and Data SecurityAccess Control and Trust

Attesting Outputs and Delegation Ancestry in Multi-Agent AI Systems

Open access
Liu, Lifei, Yu, Haoran·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Multi-agent applications delegate work across independently operated deployers. After an incident, a verifier must answer two questions: which deployer released the reported bytes, and whether each cross-deployer edge was authorized. Credentials establish who may act, but need not bind them to later output bytes or prove both deployers authorized a dynamically created edge. We present a two-layer attestation design for dynamic delegation without a shared authority, public log, or precommitted workflow. A trusted deployer runtime signs a hash of each released output; this records released bytes but does not prevent prompt injection. Ancestry evidence records edge authorization. Under a unified threat model, we compare a signed linked list, a Merkle-chain variant, and a co-signed DAG. The primitives are standard; the contribution is deployer-side binding and the evidence needed for the two questions. After child-key compromise, the single-signer designs permit an unauthorized parent binding, whereas the co-signed DAG rejects it because the parent must authorize the edge. Fixed adversary matrices and regression tests validate the composed verifier. On an Apple M1 Pro, ancestry-only checks take 24.3-499.2us per hop. In a live local multi-service workflow, a parent discovers the child's A2A Agent Card; the child calls an MCP tool and releases local-LLM output: all 30 signed-DAG tasks passed complete verification, while a controlled child-key-only claim was rejected; its mean end-to-end latency was 813.1ms versus 770.8ms without evidence. In a complementary three-availability-zone AWS deployment, all 1,000 valid co-signed-DAG paths verified; issuance averaged 3.651ms and complete verification 5.015ms. The cloud result excludes TLS/mTLS, KMS, and model-serving latency.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2608.30387

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. [1]S. Yao, J. Zhao, D. Yu, N. Du, I. Shafran, K. Narasimhan, and Y. Cao, 'ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models,' arXiv:2210.03629, 2022. · arXiv
  2. [2]Q. Wu, G. Bansal, J. Zhang, Y. Wu, B. Li, E. Zhu, L. Jiang, X. Zhang, S. Zhang, J. Liu, A. H. Awadallah, R. W. White, D. Burger, and C. Wang, 'AutoGen: Enabling next-gen LLM applications via multi-agent conversation,' arXiv:2308.08155, 2023. · arXiv
  3. K. Greshake, S. Abdelnabi, S. Mishra, C. Endres, T. Holz, and M. Fritz, 'Not what you've signed up for: Compromising real-world LLMintegrated applications with indirect prompt injection,' in Proceedings of the 16th ACM Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Security (AISec '23) . ACM, 2023, pp. 79-90.
  4. [4]T. South, 'Authenticated delegation and authorized AI agents,' arXiv:2501.09674, 2025. · arXiv
  5. [6]Y. Li, Z. Fan, and Z. Zhuang, 'When AUC 0.998 is not enough: A candidate evaluation protocol for hidden-state probes of indirect prompt injection in multimodal computer-use agents,' 2026, camera-ready version for the Evaluation for Multimodal Generation Workshop (EvalMG 2026). [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.22864 · arXiv
  6. [7]A. Chan, C. Ezell, M. Kaufmann, K. Wei, L. Hammond, H. Bradley, E. Bluemke, N. Rajkumar, D. Krueger, N. Kolt, L. Heim, and M. Anderljung, 'Visibility into AI agents,' in Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) . ACM, 2024, pp. 958-973.
  7. M. Llambí-Morillas and D. Fernández-Fernández, 'Toward cryptographically verifiable authorization for autonomous AI agents: A security hypothesis, preliminary formal model, and proof-of-concept implementation,' arXiv:2607.21325, 2026. · arXiv
  8. [13]S. Torres-Arias, H. Afzali, T. K. Kuppusamy, R. Curtmola, and J. Cappos, 'in-toto: Providing farm-to-table guarantees for bits and bytes,' in 28th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security) . USENIX Association, 2019, pp. 1393-1410.
  9. [15]S. Prakash, 'AIP: Agent identity protocol for verifiable delegation across MCP and A2A,' arXiv:2603.24775, 2026. · arXiv
  10. [16]A. Dalugoda, 'HDP: A lightweight cryptographic protocol for human delegation provenance in agentic AI systems,' arXiv:2604.04522, 2026. · arXiv
  11. [17]C. Ouyang and R. Hou, 'MemLineage: Lineage-guided enforcement for LLM agent memory,' arXiv:2605.14421, 2026. · arXiv
  12. [18]G. Racioppi, 'Mandato: Protocol-level enforcement of digitally signed mandates on AI agent actions with cryptographically chained audit trails,' arXiv:2608.14074, 2026. · arXiv
  13. [19]A. C. Myers and B. Liskov, 'A decentralized model for information flow control,' in Proceedings of the 16th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP) . ACM, 1997, pp. 129-142.
  14. [22]D. J. Bernstein, N. Duif, T. Lange, P. Schwabe, and B. Yang, 'High-speed high-security signatures,' Journal of Cryptographic Engineering , vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 77-89, 2012.
  15. [24]R. C. Merkle, 'Protocols for public key cryptosystems,' in Proceedings of the 1980 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy . IEEE, 1980, pp. 122-134.

Authors
Liu, L., & Yu, H.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7204903411
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cryptography and Data Security
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Access Control and Trust
Keywords
multi-agent AI, directed acyclic graphs, prompt injection

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review